Jon Frudden v. Kayann Pilling
877 F.3d 821
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2011 Roy Gomm Elementary School (RGES) adopted a mandatory uniform policy requiring red or navy polo shirts/sweatshirts bearing a small logo: school name, a gopher mascot, and the motto “TOMORROW’S LEADERS.”
- The policy included an exemption allowing uniforms of “nationally recognized youth organizations such as Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts on regular meeting days.”
- Mary and Jon Frudden sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of their children, alleging First Amendment violations from the motto requirement and the selective-exemption. Initial district court applied intermediate scrutiny and upheld the policy; a prior Ninth Circuit panel (Frudden II) reversed, applying strict scrutiny to both the motto and the exemption.
- On remand the school removed the motto from new uniforms and changed the exemption policy; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding (1) Individual Defendants entitled to qualified immunity, and (2) Institutional Defendants’ actions survived strict scrutiny (district court did not fully address exemption harms).
- This Ninth Circuit panel, although disagreeing with the earlier panel’s standard, felt bound by that precedent: it held the motto and the exemption violate the First Amendment, granted qualified immunity to the Individual Defendants (law was not clearly established), and remanded for damages against the Institutional Defendants.
Issues and Key Holdings
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requiring students to wear a uniform logo with the motto “Tomorrow’s Leaders” violates the First Amendment | The motto is compelled, viewpoint-bearing speech; strict scrutiny applies and the motto is not narrowly tailored | The uniform/logo is content-neutral like Jacobs; intermediate scrutiny applies and the motto furthers school interests (achievement, anti-bullying) | Applying the earlier panel’s mandate of strict scrutiny, the motto fails strict scrutiny and thus violates the First Amendment |
| Whether the exemption for uniforms of “nationally recognized” youth organizations is content-based and violates the First Amendment | The exemption privileges certain organizations and viewpoints (e.g., Boy/Girl Scouts) over others (e.g., AYSO); strict scrutiny applies | The exemption served noncompelling interests (consistency, parent convenience); school authority in nonpublic forum context limits scrutiny | Under strict scrutiny (per prior panel), the exemption is not sufficiently justified and violates the First Amendment |
| Whether Individual Defendants (school employees) are entitled to qualified immunity for enforcing the policy | Frudden: officials violated clearly established First Amendment rights | Defendants: controlling precedent (Jacobs, Hazelwood, etc.) did not clearly establish that the motto or exemption were unconstitutional | Individual Defendants entitled to qualified immunity because precedent did not place the constitutional question beyond debate |
| Whether Institutional Defendants (PFA, WCSD) are immune and whether damages remain | Frudden seeks damages; institutional defendants not protected by qualified immunity | Defendants argued lack of damages or that policy was lawful | Institutional Defendants not entitled to qualified immunity; damages for First Amendment violations remanded to district court for determination |
Key Cases Cited
- West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (compelled patriotic speech in schools is unconstitutional)
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (state requirement to display a slogan on license plates violates First Amendment)
- Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980) (statute privileging particular messages in a public forum is unconstitutional)
- Jacobs v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 526 F.3d 419 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding content-neutral school uniform under intermediate scrutiny)
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) (schools may impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions in nonpublic school forum)
- Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified-immunity standard: law must be clearly established to deny immunity)